Florida politics, policy, and plain-spoken analysis by Gary Fineout.

Jeb Bush

May 08, 2017

Separated by a couple of hundred yards, a scene played out on Friday night that in a brief few moments captured the essence of the entire 2017 session of the Florida Legislature.

At one end Senate President Joe Negron made his case for why Republican Gov. Rick Scott should look favorably on the new state budget crafted by the GOP-controlled Legislature (and which will be voted on this Monday.)

Negron's logic was even though Scott didn't get what he want the Senate was always on his side. Senators backed Scott's request for money for business incentives and to fully fund Visit Florida, the state's tourism marketing agency. They just couldn't get the House to go along.

"On the Senate side the track record speaks for itself ,'' Negron told reporters. 'We've been a strong ally in the Senate of the governor and his priorities.'

Contrast that to House Speaker Richard Corcoranwho took a much more confrontational position toward the governor. (A governor by the way who has criss-crossed the state blasting GOP legislators and even running ads critical of legislators.)

'There's a war going on for the soul of the party,'' Corcoran said. "Are we going to be who we say we are?"

To Corcoran this "war" means opposing business incentives, or "corporate welfare' as he called them in the past. And in his brief session with reporters he also mentioned politicians who campaign saying they want to crack down on illegal immigration and are opposed to "the liberal socialistic health care policy called Obamacare" but then change their position when they get into office.

Without using his name directly, it was clear that Corcoran was taking aim at Scott, who flipped on Medicaid expansion (part of Obamacare) in his run-up to his re-election campaign and who ran in 2010 promising to take a hard line against immigration but then in 2014 signed a bill that extended in-tuition to the children of undocumented immigrants. (Corcoran voted against the bill even though it was strongly supported by then-House Speaker Will Weatherford.)

"I think what we need to do is elect leaders who say what they mean and mean what they say,'' said Corcoran, who maintains he has yet to make up his mind on whether he plans to run for governor next year.

Corcoran also predicted to reporters that he thought the House and Senate had the votes to hand Scott his first veto override if the governor does indeed veto the entire budget. (This requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers, which means Democrats will have to go along.)

His exchange with reporters showed that Corcoran - who talked before session of turning on the lights and finding the "cockroaches" that the Scott administration had allowed to flourish during six years in office - finishing the 60-day session with the same provocative, confrontational stance he had before it started.

Given everything that has happened over the last two months of the session it's not really surprising.

Along the way he pushed back against anyone - whether they were in media, his own party, or whomever - who challenged his statements or positions. Sometimes he did it in a lawyerly fashion (such as complaints about transparency weren't valid because the media focused on just one part and not the totality of the changes he pushed.)

But other times it was through sheer force.

He used the budget negotiations (largely behind closed doors) and Negron's own top priority to create a reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee to get the Senate to take up a proposed constitutional amendment that would expand Florida's homestead exemption. Corcoran was able to get the Senate to move quickly on this proposal even though it languished most of the session and was opposed by Sen. Jack Latvala, the Senate budget chief.

Corcoran also used his power in less visible, but still effective fashion (like shutting down session for long stretches in the final days when the pressure builds to act.) It has been argued that his crackdown on lobbyists before session and the requirements about increased disclosure were more about giving him the speaker a clearer idea of where lobbyists may be taking aim at his agenda.

And on Day 60 Corcoran got the Senate to sign off on a nearly 300-page overhaul of education policy (some of it never seen in public before) that will also be taken up Monday on the final day of session. Corcoran used the budget conference process to place all this policy into two "conforming" bills (bills that change state law to conform to the budget) even though some elements of the legislation weren't ever included in the budget conference. He also got policy changes for Visit Florida included in a bill that initially just dealt with a "displaced homemakers" program.

Corcoran wasn't apologetic for the move, saying instead that the bill (HB 7069) and which includes his "Schools of Hope" proposal to shift students in low-performing schools over to charter schools was some of the "boldest most transformational" change ever and would even rival former Gov. JebBush's A+ plan that put in place the state's entire school grading system.

The setbacks for Corcoran were few: His push for major ethics reform and judicial term limits were never taken seriously in the Senate. There's an argument that despite his pre-session warnings to avoid them that there were plenty of special interest fights . Witness the drawn-out battle over the so-called "Whiskey and Wheaties bill" - which would allow grocery stores to eventually sell hard liquor - as one example. (Corcoran, who appeared to take a strong interest in the measure, maintains his backing of that bill was about free-market principles.)

But of course the question is whether Corcoran's victory dance is premature.

Because at this point it's unclear what Scott will do and whether he will use his own considerable power against the House speaker.

This past week Corcoran and his top allies let it be known that they had offered Scott a deal where they would have relented in a couple of places and funded a couple of his priorities: Visit Florida as well as money for repairs to the Herbert Hoover dike surrounding Lake Okeechobee.

That Scott's people rejected the deal isn't that hard to explain. As explained by those close to Scott, the governor didn't deliver a long list of demands to state legislators this year so it shouldn't be too hard to get the handful of things he asked for.

Of course there remains the chance there will be a few more chess moves before ultimately the Corcoran vs. Scott drama plays itself out.

Corcoran and Negron could refuse to immediately deliver the budget to Scott, meaning that the governor - and the Legislature - would have less time to act as the state moves closer to the end of the fiscal year on June 30. There's nothing in state law that mandates when the Legislature has to deliver the budget to Scott's desk. So theoretically the Legislature could hand it over a week ahead of time.

Yet in one way the two legislative leaders have given Scott an easier path to a budget veto.

The main general appropriations act is $82.4 billion, but it doesn't include many key elements. Legislators have placed more than $700 million worth of spending for Negron's Lake Okeechobee plan, Schools of Hope, Visit Florida and the state employee pay raise OUTSIDE the main budget bill.

This means Scott can sign some of the bills important to the Senate (where it may be easier to sustain a veto) while at the same time vetoing the budget and any other bills important to the House.

Of course if Scott does veto the entire budget (a rare occurrence in recent Florida history) then we get to watch Round 2 between the speaker and the governor.

April 28, 2016

Florida may have a new insurance commissioner on Friday, then again it might not.

But Gov. Rick Scott and members of the Florida Cabinet will hold their third meeting in the last few weeks in a yet-another effort to reach a consensus on who should replace the outgoing Kevin McCarty(pictured left with Scott). As has been well-reported, Scott and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater have been unable to reach agreement on who should replace McCarty. That's created a stalemate because Florida law requires both officials to agree on a replacement.

Atwater has painted the standoff as a byproduct of a process that he says was created to make sure that top officials were deliberative in such an important hire.

Ok.

But perhaps it would be good to take a brief history lesson in how we got here, and why in reality, the process now being used has never really been tested before. And along the way, maybe ask the architect of all this what he thinks about his handiwork (he actually kind of blames Jeb Bush.)

It would be tempting to trace all of this back to the Civil War (yes, really) but let's just say that it became recognized that in the '90s that Florida's governor was considered one of the weaker chief executives in the country.That's because the governor shared power with other elected officials - and in some instances had little control over important areas such as education.

Voters in 1998 were asked to approve a sweeping overhaul of Florida government. This proposal by the FloridaConstitution Revision Commission did a number of things that has generated a lot of debate since then. The education commissioner was changed from an elected to an appointed position. A new State Board of Education (appointed by the governor) became responsible for hiring the commissioner. The governor and Cabinet, which used to be the state education board, no longer had that responsibility. The Secretary of State went from an elected position to an appointed position. And the elected positions of Treasurer and Comptroller would be merged into one new one: the chief financial officer.

As the commission was crafting this proposal, the plan was to also remove the agriculture commissioner from the Cabinet but an uproar from agricultural interests nixed this idea. That eventually created flareups because that leaves four voting members when the governor and Cabinet meet - and leading to discussions on how to weight certain votes so a decision can be made.

Flash forward to 2002: State legislators were under the gun to come up with new laws to put all of these above reforms into action (The amendment did not go into effect immediately). The changes in education, particularly in higher education, sparked an enormous firestorm.

When it came to creating the chief financial officer position, a key argument began to quickly emerge: Should the CFO have complete sway over the regulation of both the insurance and banking sectors - and invariably the large amount of campaign donations that would come from those seeking influence over such important parts of the state economy? In the past, the two jobs were split between the comptroller and treasurer. The treasurer was in essence the insurance commissioner. This led to a public tug-of-war between Comptroller Bob Milligan and Tom Gallagher, who was treasurer and planned to run for CFO.

It was state legislators, including a powerful Republican from Polk County, Rep. J.D. Alexander that came up with the compromise: The jobs of insurance commissioner and banking commissioner would be picked by the governor and the new shrunken Cabinet. And furthermore, there was this addition: The job of insurance commissioner would require BOTH the governor and CFO to agree on who they wanted for the job. The law also states that both elected officials must also agree to fire someone from the position.

Since this was created in 2002 there's been only person to hold the job of appointed insurance commissioner: McCarty. And he's been an ultimate survivor - thanks in no part to the bifurcated law that Alexander helped draw up. CFO Alex Sink wanted to fire him, but then-Gov. Charlie Crist refused to go along. Then during the storm over Bailey's departure it came out that Scott wanted him gone. But Atwater at the time refused to concur and McCarty remained in place until he submitted his resignation earlier this year.

Alexander himself tried to change the law that allowed McCarty to remain in place, saying he was wrong in how they crafted it. He pushed a bill to require that the commissioner be subject to a confirmation vote every two years. It failed to pass.

Now here we are - in a situation that has really not happened since the law took effect.

McCarty was supposed to resign effective May 2 - but then he offered to stay on until 45 days after a successor is chosen - to ensure that Florida has someone in place during hurricane season that starts June 1. Scott's own general counsel, however, maintained that McCarty couldn't do this because the governor and Cabinet had accepted his resignation and could not alter that date without - t'dah - a vote where both the governor and CFO agree. Not so fast, maintained Atwater's team: All the governor and Cabinet did was set a schedule to appoint a replacement. They never "formally" accepted it.

So how does Alexander view all this and how his creation has fared? Well, you could say he waxed a bit poetic about it all, but it sounds as if he is calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam to assert themselves more. (So far Bondi and Putnam have called on Atwater and Scott work out their differences.)

"The genius of the American system of government isn't just democracy but of divided government,'' he said in a message. "Consequently, I wanted the CFO to have the lead over mgt of financial services and insurance. We were forced by the governor of the day to give more authority to his office. An unfortunate outcome of a four member Cabinet. At this point, hopefully the other Cabinet officers will weigh with a choice and consensus will prevail."

Alexander explained that "the governor in my opinion has plenty of power, the constitution seems to give principle authority to the CFO in these matters." He added that the decision all those years ago to keep the agriculture commissioner on the Cabinet "complicated" matters and required them that the governor be given a supervote on certain decision.

"The answer is to lose or gain one Cabinet member," he added. "In the order to pass a bill the governor required a larger role. It was part of the compromise, which we knew had this potential. My guess is the pressure will build and this will be resolved."

January 11, 2016

After one of the most tumultuous years since Republicans assumed control of the Florida Legislature - the GOP-controlled House and Senate return this week for a 60-day jaunt that many legislative leaders hope/predict is relatively calm and uneventful heading into what could be a highly unpredictable election year.

Most insiders of course can recount the score: The budget meltdown, the abrupt ending of the 2015 regular session, two failed redistricting special sessions, a budget finally passed with days to go before a state government shutdown.

Legislators are returning early this year as part of an experiment to move up the date so that lawmakers can be back home in time to spend spring break with their families. (It would take a change in the constitution to move up session start for every year.)

Here then are the 5 biggest questions of session:

Can everybody just get along?

The expectation is that the resolution of the long-simmering Senate presidency battle (which was won by Sen. Joe Negron) and the Senate's tabling of Medicaid expansion should make it easier to reach a consensus on the state budget and other issues. Throw in the fact that it's an election year and there is an anticipation that there will be a willingness to compromise. But that may not capture the complicated situation at hand.

First all, there'sGov. Rick Scott who enters the session with a longer wish list than normal. And it's not just the $1 billion tax cut package and Enterprise Florida reforms that the governor wants (although that appears to be a big ask). Scott put together a $3 billion gambling deal with the Seminoles and he's also pursuing his health care transparency package.

Last year Scott showed that there is a price to pay (through his substantial budget vetoes) if you don't go his way. So you can be assured that remains on the minds of many legislators.

But let's not forget there are some Scott agency heads whose fates remained unresolved, or that there remains a split in fundraising/political activities that has resulted in the Senate and Scott raising money separately from the party. You can also throw in the whole unsettled situation in the Senate due to a redrawn state Senate map that could theoretically force some senators to moderate their positions.

Lastly, a key question is how supporters of former Gov. Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio in the Legislature will view Scott's decision to nudge ever so closely to endorsing GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Say what you will about the sausage-making in the state Capitol a lot of it still depends on connections and relationships and many of the items cited could play a role. And if Scott is viewed as isolated from members of his party then there is even less willingness to work with him.

Is it possible to ever reach an agreement on gambling?

Well, you certainly wouldn't want to bet on it given the competing forces (including dog and horse tracks from outside of South Florida) who don't like some of the fine print on the deal that Scott reached with the Seminole Tribe. In the past few years attempts to pass major gambling bills have floundered amid the Scylla and Charybdis that exists in the Legislature on this issue.

But Scott remains a wild card on this. The governor, who began his business career as a deal maker, put together a proposed compact with tribal officials that was guaranteed to get big headlines and promised a big payout.

Throughout his time as governor Scott has remained, for lack of a better word, agnostic about gambling in the state. In other words, the governor isn't going to back the tribe, the dog tracks, the anti-gambling factions including Disney, Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson, or even Trump at all cost.

It would not be surprising if Scott's approach is basically: 'Hey, I helped put together a deal. Tribe, it's up to you and your lobbyists to get it passed.' And more importantly, is Scott amenable to changes as long as the overarching achievement - the money in the state's bank account is unchanged? Signs point to yes.

Tribal officials - who are still locked in a court battle over whether they can keep blackjack tables in their casinos under the 2010 deal that expired last summer - may have to decide if they need to cobble together something that makes everyone happy. Or decide if they could take their chances and just wait until next year.

Scott has been very deferential so far in his public pronouncements and has made it clear that it's up to the Legislature to work something out. If it doesn't happen the governor can maintain it wasn't his fault.

How many gun bills will reach their target?

Apart from the budget and gambling battles, you can expect a fair amount of attention in the media to be focused on the gun bills already moving through the Legislature. These include bills allowing open carry of firearms, guns on college campuses and changes to the Stand Your Ground law.

The decision by legislative leaders to already allow these bills to move through legislative committees even before the start of the 60-day session is a sign that there is considerable support for them.

Plus long-time National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammerhas made it abundantly clear that she and her supporters have no plans to modify their stances on these bills. Hammer has told everyone that she will be keep pushing the legislation for as long as it takes.

Put that together and it would reasonable to assume that most, if not all, of the bills stand a good chance of reaching Scott's desk later this year. Yes, there is opposition to the various bills, including Florida State University President John Thrasher and university police chiefs on campus carry to some of Florida's sheriff's on open carry.

But the gun bills give Republicans a chance to do something that will fire up their own political base heading into what could be a chaotic election season.

There is a caveat with all of this though and that's the unresolved question of whether the new Senate districts (which appear to tilt toward Democrats) will persuade some senators that contentious issues of this sort need to be put on hold until 2017.

How will the growing power of Joe Negron and Richard Corcoran affect the process?

The general theory about the Legislature is that the influence/power of the outgoing legislative leaders begins to ebb during their second session while the clout of their successors begins to grow.

There have been exceptions to that rule over the years i.e. Dean Cannon as House speaker and John McKay as Senate president.

There will be those who will make snide comments that Corcoran, a former top aide to Rubio and current House budget chief, already has considerable sway in the House. Yes there are many signs that he does wield a good deal of influence, but expect it to get even larger.

Among some insiders who follow the process the operating theory right now is that House Speaker Steve Crisafulli and SenatePresident Andy Gardiner will get to watch their top priorities pass in the opening days of the session. (For Crisafulli, a potential Agriculture Commissioner candidate, that's a comprehensive water bill, while for Gardiner it's bills to aid families with children who have developmental disabilities.)

After that moment of comity, the rest of the session will be conducted in Corcoran and Negron's shadow. That could affect plenty of important bills, whether it's Negron's support of a measure to legalize/regulate fantasy sports to the judiciary reforms that Corcoran has already promised to push through.

Other considerations: Negron, an attorney, has clashed in the past with the insurance industry so that may make it hard for them to push through changes opposed by trial attorneys such as the revamp of assignment of benefits. Corcoran - along with his successor Rep. Jose Oliva - have expressed skepticism about for targeted business incentives like those championed by Scott or for items such as film incentives or subsidies to sports teams and operations.

Will this really be a do-nothing year for the Florida Legislature?

Talk to most lobbyists and they will quietly concur: This may be a really tough year to get anything substantial passed.

The reasons are many, starting with the epic battles of last year (see No. 1) to what appears to be an unpredictable election year (see Trump, Donald.)

There is a feeling right now that any attempt to move major changes/reforms in key areas will be difficult. It's not just the gambling deal with the tribe. This could flow to everything else including the types of tax cuts, health care changes pursued by the House to some of the environmental bills being pursued to alimony reform and major education bills. If Republican leaders are intent on putting aside any public disagreements then the easiest way may be to just deep-six many of the more contentious proposals.

As of this past weekend, 1,644 bills have been filed which does appear to put the Legislature on pace to meet last year's totals so maybe legislators themselves remain somewhat optimistic that they can things done. There is always a natural tendency for the Legislature to try to fix/improve/change things and have something to campaign about in the fall.

But the most substantial year for legislation in recent years was 2011 when you had a new governor and a supermajority in the Legislature following the 2010 wave year for the GOP. That track record suggests that 2016 will be relatively quiet.

December 30, 2015

It's always been an open secret that Florida Gov. Rick Scott sticks to a script when he talks in public, especially when he occasionally answers questions from the press.

A reminder of that came recently when his office posted copies of what it calls "Driving Message" in response to a public records request by Tampa Bay Times reporter Steve Bousquet.

The information from October and November is essentially a rolling set of questions on topics/news of the day that includes the answer that Scott is supposed to be given when asked. The responses cover everything from campus carry gun legislation to what he thinks about GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and why he's opposed to raising the minimum wage. ("Increasing the minimum wage will result in losing jobs.")

And the answers included in the documents are exactly what Scott has said about the various topics, whether it's a question about suspending school grades or the handling of Syrian refugees by federal government.

The talking points also give a small amount of insight about how Scott may handle issues in the near future.

The remarks, for instance, say he's not endorsing any GOP candidates for president "today" but they include praise for Trump despite the criticism aimed at the businessman from fellow GOP candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

"I think people in Washington are trying to figure out why Trump is doing so well, but the reality is he is saying what he thinks. He is not being politically correct. I think a lot of people find that refreshing," state Scott's talking points.

Coupled with other things he has said about Trump _ and the fact that some of his own key supporters/campaign people are now working for him _ it would be plausible for Scott to endorse him ahead of the March GOP primary in Florida. (Although Scott has generally avoided getting involved in primaries given his own bitter, divisive primary for governor back in 2010 when he ran against establishment-backed candidate Bill McCollum.)

The answers included in the document regarding a bill that would allow concealed weapon holders to bring their guns on university campuses suggests that the Scott administration may have some doubts about the legislation. ("I am not sure there is a silver bullet solution, but college should be a safe place students go to learn, not a place of violence.")

But the main question is whether Scott and his team will revise this script as they head into 2016 and a session that starts in less than two weeks.

His talking points on tax cuts, hospital transparency, the proposed deal with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and Enterprise Florida reforms don't fully explain Scott's logic. In other words, how exactly will Scott sell this?

Despite a contentious 2015 session that saw the GOP-controlled Legislature pare back, or ignore completely, many of his recommendations, Scott actually is pushing ahead with a more detailed agenda this upcoming session than he has during the last few years. And that creates plenty of potential flashpoints in the weeks and months ahead.

There's no doubt that his $1 billion tax cut package and his request of $250 million for business incentives are his top priorities as Scott makes a case to diversify the state's economy. He will make the argument in January - during a tour to emphasize job growth under his watch - that the state's economic recovery will not hold if more isn't done.

The problem for Scott and his team is that there is a wide divide in the House and Senate (which has been unable to agree on many top issues in the past year) on the right approach of so many of the items on Scott's 2016 checklist.

Gambling? It's not clear that there's enough votes in the Senate for the $3 billion deal proposed by Scott that would give craps and roulette to the Seminoles. But the House may not go along with the deal unless it includes a constitutional amendment that bars any future expansion. Senate President Andy Gardiner has said he's not sure there's enough votes in the Senate to pass such an amendment.

Business incentives? While the House and Senate may be willing to endorse Scott's "reforms" in regards to process, the idea of placing such a large amount of money in the governor's hands is viewed suspiciously by some House conservatives who consider incentives an intrusion into the marketplace.

Tax cuts? The amount is a hard goal to reach without making cuts elsewhere in the budget - which is something that legislators about to hit the campaign trail don't want hanging over their head. Another complication is that there is growing resistance to the reliance on increased local property taxes to help pay for school funding. House and Senate leaders say they like "tax cuts," but there is also divergence on whether those cuts should be more directed at individuals, not companies as Scott has largely proposed.

Hospital transparency? Scott's ongoing efforts to go after Florida's hospitals - including a price cap - includes some proposals that may strike some conservatives as intrusive government regulation not a free-market solution. House leaders have been pushing policies that they say will open up health care to more competition, while top Senate Republicans seem to have little interest in any of the ideas.

Scott, of course, has his veto pen as the ultimate bargaining tool as he deals with recalcitrant legislators.

The decision of Jesse Panuccioto resign from his job as the head of the Department of Economic Opportunity rather than confront a messy confirmation battle removed one potential point of leverage for the Florida Senate. But there are other agency heads whose adherence to Scott's agenda and seeming resistance to legislative instructions may make it difficult for them to survive what could be a messy session.

If the Legislature were in fact able to put together a budget quickly and present it to Scott before the end of the 60-day session, it would create a conundrum for the governor. He would be forced to act on legislative budget priorities within 7 days which would give lawmakers the ability to decide whether to approve some of Scott's top priorities based on how he handled the budget.

Another problem for Scott is that the consuming lobbying frenzy over the compact with the Seminole Tribe may distract legislators as they try to cobble together enough votes to pass something. (One possible solution is to have lawmakers pass the main compact, with the promise they will pass bills in 2017 to deal with other parts of the gambling industry.)

As all of this unfolds during the next two months, the question is whether Scott and his team will provide new answers, new insights and new arguments to counter the pushback that the governor is going to likely encounter.

Or will Scott stick to his oft-repeated line that he used time and time again where he will say that he expects the Legislature to "do the right thing" and vote exactly how he wants them to without explaining how, or why legislators should do that.

Maybe that will be the "driving message" that needs to be answered later in 2016.

October 05, 2015

It was the kind of comment that created a torrent of coverage that threatened to upend the supposed Bush juggernaut.

But it didn't happen this year. Try 13 years ago.

When running for re-election as governor, Bush was caught on tape during a meeting in his Capitol office in Tallahassee boasting about how he had "devious plans" if a proposed constitutional amendment dealing with class size pushed by rival (and then State Sen.) Kendrick Meek was ultimately adopted by voters.

Bush had used the proposal _ which called for reducing class sizes in all levels of Florida schools _ as a way to attack Democrat Bill McBride. While McBride advocated for passage of the amendment Bush warned it would trigger massive tax hikes. Bush proclaimed that if it passed it would "blot out the sun."

So during a meeting with people from Pensacola _ including a sitting state legislator _ Bush was apparently unaware that a reporter was in the room with him and the tape recorder was rolling when talk turned to the pending amendment.

"I've got a couple of devious plans if this thing passes," said Bush with a sarcastic tone.

That same tape also shows that Bush joked about the sexual orientation of the women involved in the tragic disappearance of foster child Rilya Wilson and that he talked about trying to raise teacher salaries in a way that would bypass teacher unions.

Bush would later contend he didn't know he was being taped, but the remarks placed his campaign on the defense and was a major gaffe with just weeks to go before voters headed to the polls.

And in a way, it was his campaign that had inadvertently allowed the damaging incident to occur.

That's because the Gannett reporter who taped the remarks during the meeting was not allowed to be rotated in on a campaign bus with Bush earlier that same year.

Todd Harris, a communications and political strategist who would later go to work for Marco Rubio and other prominent GOP candidates, made a calculated decision as to who would spend time with Bush and who couldn't. Those decisions weren't based so much on actual coverage, but whether or not the media outlet audience was someone the campaign was targeting. Despite the request from reporter Alisa LaPolt to be included on the bus, Harris turned her down and used a bit of profanity to express how he didn't care about Gannett's coverage about Bush.

So in other words, if LaPolt had been on the bus with other reporters then a few weeks later it's reasonable to conclude Bush would have recognized her when she came into his office.

The relevance of this Bush history is to recount how the Republican's history of making seemingly off-the-cuff remarks is not new.

And among Tallahassee reporters it was one of the main drawbacks that some had cited about a campaign for presidency. Many reporters who covered him closely had wondered whether Bush - who at times has a prickly personality - would be able to sustain himself through a gauntlet of national media coverage where every word is followed closely and then amplified in a world of social media.

Bush's comments of seemingly awkward comments dated all the way back to his 1994 bid for governor when he said he would probably do nothing for black voters if he were elected. He was caught on camera saying "kick their asses out" when Meek and another legislator held a sit-in protest in the governor's suite of offices over Bush's efforts to eliminate affirmative action in college admissions and state spending. (Bush's staff would later contend he was referring to reporters, not Meek and then State Rep. Tony Hill.)

For Bush these comments have overwhelmed the narrative that the campaign has tried to put together from day one. (That Bush is a consistent conservative reformer with an actual track record that shows his dedication to getting things accomplished.) The mostly unscripted moments for Bush have also come on top of a vetting by news organizations that many of the other candidates have not yet gone through.

While Bush is a wonky person who loves to delve into details and can often go head to head with reporters, he can also be impatient and terse when confronted with questions.

Another great moment from the 2002 campaign: During a stop at the Ham Jam festival in northeast Florida, Bush's campaign apparently didn't have the governor's visit to the barbecue/country music event completely mapped out.

In a scene almost out of Spinal Tap, Bush and his entourage are wandering around behind the stage set up at the festival trying to figure out where he is supposed to go.

Walking through the thin haze of smoke that hangs over the site, they go around to one side, double back and then back to the same place they were previously. Finally an exasperated Bush _ waving his hands at the press contingent following him _ snaps at a staffer "Where are we going? I'm not going to talk to them again. I've already talked to them."

Of course in the end Bush prevailed in that election due to his organization, his cash advantage and the fumbled campaign of his opponent. He may prevail again in the long-drawn out GOP primary for president. It could be that some of his quips could help him counter the "low energy" cracks made by Donald Trump.

But his last state campaign was waged during a different media era. It was also an environment where there was not around-the-clock dissection of every move. Bush has to remain engaged on the campaign trail as the primaries draw closer. And that means there could be another unscripted moment that could cause even more headaches for him.

July 21, 2015

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush returned to the state capital on Monday to outline his plans to overhaul the culture of Washington D.C.

And in doing so - he may have _ to the consternation of some of those in the audience helped preserve the state's lobbyist gift ban.

The ban was enacted in late 2005 - one of the strictest regulations in the country at the time - and came after legislative wrangling that was an outgrowth of changes sought by then-Senate President Tom Lee.

For a national audience it may have sounded Monday as if Bush was the instigator of the ban.

"I know how that culture works,'' Bush said. "I saw it here in Tallahassee. Over time, lobbyists and legislators grew a little too comfortable in each other’s company, cutting deals that didn’t have much to do with the public interest. So along with the other changes we made, the Florida Legislature passed a law that I signed into law that created the strictest lobbying reforms in the country."

There's nothing inaccurate in that statement. But it does kind of brush aside a bit of the back story that existed in the development of the ban since it was legislators, not the governor, who was the main driver of the change.

Lee's goal was never to ban anything. He advocated two things: Disclosure of the freebies that lobbyists gave to legislators - and disclosure of how much money lobbyists were paid.

Lee told reporters at the time that they would be surprised how much money was in the system, and how that disclosure would shed a light on why the Legislature did some of the things that it did.

The Brandon Republican made his push for changes at the same time that a series of articles _ many of them in The Miami Herald _ that showed how the state's existing disclosure and gift laws had been flouted.

One example: Legislators couldn't accept anything more than $100 - and items lower than that but higher than $25 were supposed to be reported. Lobbyists would routinely agree to split the costs among themselves and spread it to multiple legislators to sidestep this requirement.

Other stories disclosed how one legislator solicited contributions from lobbyists for a trip to Africa, while another described a lavish engagement party held for one legislator and paid for lobbyists.

Lee's push initially went nowhere - but the issue gained momentum after the Herald published a story in late 2005 that pointed out four legislators flew to Canada on a private jet and visited a casino. They argued that they were raising money for the Republican Party of Florida so it was legal. But the cost of the trip was much more higher than the money raised. Plus it came at a time when legislators were considering how to implement a constitutional amendment dealing with gambling in South Florida.

During a special session late that year Lee pushed to add the gift ban to the mix since it was not included in the initial call issued by Bush. (The special session was called to implement an overhaul of Medicaid and to implement the amendment that allowed slot machines in Broward and Miami-Dade counties.)

The initial Senate bill did not ban everything. Instead it required detailed reporting of who provided meals and beverages to legislators on an individual basis. But it was the House _ led then by SpeakerAllan Bense _ that moved a bill that called for a complete ban.

The telling of the tale since then has posited that Bense and the House did not like the disclosure requirements pushed by Lee so they countered with such a Draconian measure that the Senate would reject it. Only that didn't happen. Lee and the Senate amended their bill to match the House measure and sent it over. Just 9 legislators voted no. Bush eagerly signed the measure into law.

"I applaud President Lee and Speaker Bense for their leadership in reforming the political status quo,'' Bush said at the time. "This measure increases transparency and accountability for the political process."

Since then the ban has survived a legal challenge, but the criticism against it has been steadily mounting, including those who note that there are legal ways for legislators to sidestep it. One key way: Solicit money from lobbyists for political committees and then use that money to pay for meals and other items.

Some lobbyists have complained that the gift ban has somehow distorted the process because they can't share a meal, or drink with legislators and that the ones with access are those who raise large amounts of money for campaigns and political committees.

Tallahassee-area legislators have maintained _ with little empirical data _ that the gift ban hurt the local economy.

Last year marked the first time since 2005 that an attempt to alter the gift ban statute made it through the process. The bill made a relatively minor tweak by making it clear that a local government that gives a legislator use of public property for a public purpose does not violate the gift ban if the local government has hired lobbyists.

But the passage of the bill included several asides from legislators that more substantial changes should be made to the law in the near future.

Bush may have blunted that momentum for now by citing the ban as a justification for a series of reforms he wants to push if elected president.

"I think the system is significantly better after that law was passed,'' Bush told a crowd gathered at Florida State University.

Now for certain it was an interesting crowd for Bush to make the remark since many of those in attendance are themselves lobbyists.

Some of the news accounts noted the connection that Bush himself has to lobbyists, including that his top adviser, Sally Bradshaw, is married to Paul Bradshaw, who founded one of Tallahassee's most successful lobbying firms Southern Strategy Group.

But by placing the gift ban into the orbit of his legacy Bush has created a rationale for top Republicans in the Legislature to support keeping it in largely intact for now. Many top GOP leaders are backing Bush for president.

It still may have been unlikely that the gift ban would have been revamped during the 2016 election year but Bush's decision to champion it may make that an even more remote possibility.

June 05, 2015

State legislators this week began a 20-day special session in an effort to pass a new state budget to avoid a possible partial government shutdown at the end of the month.

The timing of the session, however, is coming at a bad time for Gov. Rick Scott.

Scott has been planning to attend this year's Paris Air Show. It will be his 11th trade mission since he became governor - and the first one since he was re-elected last November.

But the air show is scheduled to run from June 15 to June 21 _ or exactly when the special session could be running into crunch time. (Not to mention that Scott will only have a handful of days to sign the budget into law once it is adopted.)

Last week during a meeting of Enterprise Florida a business leader told Scott that he was looking forward to joining him in Paris. Scott didn't say anything in response.

But when asked if the governor would actually leave town, the Scott administration said "it's a game day decision."

The rationale for the trip is that Florida is home to a lot of aviation and aerospace companies. But Scott _ who has had a limited presence during the special session so far _ could risk being out of the country at a critical moment for state government.

"I hope we can get him out of here in time," quipped Sen. Tom Lee, the Senate budget chief when asked whether or not the governor should attend the event.

What Jeb's allies want

While the fate of Florida's safety net hospitals, tax cuts and the fate of Scott's boost in school funding are the top items at play in the budget this year, there's plenty left in the $77-$80 billion spending plan that will be the target of lobbying in the next few days.

Take for example an appropriation in the House budget for $1.2 million to provide liability insurance to teachers.

This is not a new idea and had been in place while Gov. Jeb Bush was in office. The idea is for the state to help pay for coverage and take away a recruiting tool for the Florida Education Association - which right now is engaged in a lawsuit against Florida's tax credit scholarship program. (This program pays for roughly 70,000 kids to attend private schools around the state.)

Patricia Levesque, a former top policy aide to Bush, chief executive officer of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, executive director of the Foundation for Florida's Future, wrote an email to Senate budget chief Tom Lee strongly urging that the Senate set aside the money for the program.

In a March 31 email with the subject line - "couple of new budget issues for your radar" - Levesque wrote:

"There is a policy moving in the House that would provide every full-time teacher in the state with liability insurance coverage to match the level provided by the teacher's union. As you know, one of the primary reasons teachers give for joining the union is the liability insurance coverage. Teachers are not told that most districts have coverage for their employees or that they could buy a person rider on their homeowner's policy for $100. Instead they join union and pay $650- $850/year in membership dues. The state can provide comparable liability insurance coverage for only $5-6 per teacher ($1.2 million).

You might remember that we had this policy in place for a few years (2001-2006). It took a couple years for the information to get down to teachers - it wasn't until year 3 of the state-provided insurance that insurance cards were actually sent to the teachers before the start of the school year. But as soon as that occurred, the union immediately began working to repeal it. We believe there was a significant hit to membership that year. We think this policy is important to show teachers the state supports them, while giving them peace of mind and allowing them to choose whether or not they want to save their membership dues."

Bush _ who will announce his candidacy for president on June 15 _ left the foundations that he started ahead of his active consideration of the Republican nomination.

But this is a reminder of the long-running battle that Bush and his allies have waged against the state's teacher union (which helped boost the candidacy of Bill McBride, the Democratic nominee for governor who challenged Bush in 2002.)

Big money, big contracts also at stake

Another long-running battle at stake in this year's special session?

Florida's law-enforcement radio contract.

The ongoing tug-of-war over the contract, which now belongs to Florida-based Harris Corp., has been documented over the last couple of years. Part of the debate has been whether to move ahead and begin procurement now for a new contract in advance of the 2021 expiration of the existing one.

But Rep. Ritch Workman, the powerful Rules Committee chairman (and who is missing the first part of the session because he's out of the country), wrote to the Department of Management Services late last month to make the case for his hometown company.

Workman told DMS that Harris would upgrade the existing network to a new type of technology for the radios under its existing contract "at no additional cost." This would obviate the need to award a 19-year contract that could cost nearly $1 billion to fully implement.

The catch is that the state would have to buy the additional radios needed to run on this system. That would be a $84 million cost according to estimates that Harris provided to DMS.

DMS Secretary Chad Poppell in his response to Workman agreed that "savings to the state may exist." But he added he looked forward to "productive discussions" with the Legislature to fund it. He also said it would require a substantial technical undertaking to fully evaluate the proposal. Poppell also said that DMS would likely have to hire additional employees in order to oversee the project.

One of Harris's main competitors for the new contract, however, has a slightly different viewpoint on the proposal.

A project manager for Motorola Solutions wrote Poppell and said the proposal "amounts to a tactic to bypass the state's competitive bidding laws."

"If the state were to implement this proposal as written, it could become a very costly mistake,'' wrote Jay Malpass, strategic project manager for Motorola Solutions.

The letter contends that Harris' proposal would allow it to get a head start on other vendors in advance of the new contract.

"We want to be clear that it is our opinion that if the state proceeds with the accepting the Harris proposal, it will create an anti-competitive environment in which legitimate vendors would not be in a position to offer what will be a better, more comprehensive and cost effective solution to the state."

As Marc Caputo with Politico noted this morning on the same subject: The contracting battle should be closely watched because those backing Harris are friends, allies and big time fundraisers of Gov. Rick Scott. The Harris roster of lobbyists includes Brian Ballard and the rest of Ballard Partners as well as long-time Scott pal Billy Rubin and other lobbyists in The Rubin Group including former top Scott aide Chris Finkbeiner.

Motorola is represented by Southern Strategy Group - the deeply-connected well-heeled firm formed by PaulBradshaw, attorney, lobbyist, and who been in close contact with many top GOP politicians in the state. Bradshaw's wife, Sally Bradshaw, is a former chief of staff for Jeb Bush and will likely have a substantial role in helping him run for president.

SSG's long-roster of lobbyists also includes many former top officials in state government during the last two decades.

Rep. Richard Corcoran, the Pasco County Republican now in charge of the House budget, is helping the House push ahead with changes in the budget process.

Corcoran on Jan. 30 emailed House members and told them that if they wanted something in the 2015-16 budget they needed to answer a series of questions about the project.

"It is important that we have complete information about any issue that receives an appropriation," Corcoran wrote. His email then laid out a lengthy list of questions that needed to be answered including whether the project had gotten state money before and whether the money was needed for construction or other capital outlay costs.

Corcoran made it clear that he expected the summary because "it my expectation that budget issues are thoroughly vetted."

When asked about it Corcoran explained that both he and House Speaker Steve Crisafulli wanted to bring back "transparency" into the budget process.

On Feb. 10, he emailed members again, explaining that he had heard from members who wondered what kind of budget issue actually required information that needed to be turned over.

"Because any description I may offer could lead to misunderstanding, my suggestion to you is - when in doubt, complete the summary,'' Corcoran wrote.

Then Corcoran went further: He also included a "House Internal Member Project Policy" that explained what types of projects would be included in the House's budget.

And included in this list of eight criteria is a potential big shift for Capitol insiders.

In order for any item to be in the budget it must "be clearly displayed in the appropriations bill either by proviso of by unique appropriation category which identifies the project."

In other words, any attempt to roll an item into the base, or have it tucked in a larger appropriation will not be allowed.

The criteria also stated that priority consideration would be given to projects seeking one-time funding, have matching dollars and do not contain any construction money unless it for the "construction, improvement, maintenance or repair of state-owned infrastructure or other facilities as authorized by general law." This is similar to a budget policy that former Gov. Jeb Bush had where he was skeptical about handing out state money for something that would not be owned by the state.

It is worth noting _ as Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater has _ that just having a process like this would not prevent questionable behavior.

When he was Senate President Atwater noted that legislators had a process at the time that Ray Sansom was the House budget chief. Questions were raised about money that the Destin Republican steered into the budget for a project that was seen as beneficial to a Republican donor. Sansom wound up resigning from his speaker's post _ and the Legislature. He was charged by authorities, but they were dropped when a judge refused to allow a key witness testify.

But it's clear this new House process will require that legislators have their names attached to a earmark request in the state budget.

This process is not in place over in the Florida Senate.

But that doesn't mean that some senators aren't taking their own steps to bring more exposure to budget items.

Sen. Jack Latvala, the Clearwater Republican in charge of the transportation and economic development portions of the budget, held a public hearing this past week where roughly 50 individuals around the state were required to testify about local projects they wanted state money for.

Latvala said he made the decision to require public testimony in order to counter any suggestions that budget items were slipped in - and therefore were "budget turkeys" - which is Tallahassee-speak for pork.

"This gives everything a public airing and I think it's important for the members to hear what I hear,'' Latvala said.

Bryant said that Marion County wanted nearly $2 million to buy land located in Ocklawaha that was the site of a famed shootout with the FBI that left famed criminal Ma Barker dead. The 2-story house that that was the site of the 1935 shootout still has bullets imbedded in the walls and includes furniture from the time. Bryant said that Marion wanted to make it part of a law-enforcement museum and wanted to acquire it to prevent "further degradation."

She added there is a strong interest in "crime memorabilia" and that when it was opened up to the public on the 50th anniversary that 5,000 people visited.

When she was done, Latvala quipped: "You did all that with a straight face." He then joked a little later about Marion County seeking money so it could honor "a criminal."

Latvala warned afterwards that he wasn't sure how many, if any, of the projects seeking money this year would be included in the budget. That was a nod to the ongoing tug-of-war over health care funding that has created budget problems this year.

But at least there now exists some records on the origins of what projects may wind up in the final budget.

March 02, 2015

But as the year has progressed _ and the dominoes appear to ready to fall due to the looming campaigns of U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush _ it appears that one Republican continues to position himself for the 2018 race for governor.

And that's Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam _ who was sworn into a second term this past January.

Of course it's no secret that most Tallahassee insider and Florida politicos think that the former legislator and U.S. congressman will run.

Putnam for his part won't answer the question.

"I'm entirely focused on being the best second term agriculture commissioner I can be and focusing on the issues at hand,'' Putnam said in a recent interview.

But a series of recent events have made it clear that the path is getting clearer for Putnam to be the frontrunner.

1: The other Cabinet official seen as a potential rival _ Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater _ is angling for a run for the U.S. Senate. Atwater was spotted last week in DC with a well-known Republican consultant in tow.

Atwater's main target would be the seat held by Rubio should the Miami Republican do as expected and jump into the race for president. Rubio has said several times now that he will not seek re-election if he runs for president. That has led to a lot of anticipation that Republicans will quickly jump into action should Rubio make it official. But Atwater is also apparently willing to wait until 2018 and run for the seat now held by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson if Rubio suddenly changes course.

2. While there is buzz among Tallahassee insiders that Rubio is really angling for the 2018 governor's race himself _ there are others who insist this is just idle gossip and that a presidential bid by Rubio would in fact be a serious endeavor regardless of whether former Gov. Bush makes his all-but-official presidential campaign official.

Putnam calls Rubio a "friend and an outstanding public servant" but for his part maintains that Rubio's plans won't affect his thinking.

"I think that when it’s time to make decisions about what you choose to run for it has to be based on your own convictions, and your own views and your own ability to do the best job you can in that role,'' Putnam said. "You can only control what you can control, you can’t worry about things you can’t control."

3. Putnam continues to distance himself fromGov. Rick Scott _ on events such as the ouster of Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey _ while making sure he pursues his own set of policies that could help give him a record to run on.

The animus between Scott and Putnam dates all the way back to 2011 when Scott insiders viewed Putnam as a potential primary rival in 2014. Scott repeatedly has threatened to veto Putnam's top legislative priorities and even once suggested that he would veto chunks of the budget for Putnam's agency.

This hasn't stopped Putnam. Last year a reworking of the state's utility tax pushed by Putnam was folded into a bill including Scott's tax priorities after Scott said he didn't like Putnam's suggestion. This year it's Putnam emerging as a champion of the House water bill that has come under fire from some environmental groups.

During his first term Putnam got involved in the school lunch program and energy policy. Recently he began drawing attention to the idea of "food deserts" in the state.

Putnam said his efforts reflect a "21st Century model" for what an agriculture department should look like. But he also maintains that he can be a voice for issues that go beyond his office.

"Just as I have a role as the commissioner of agriculture, there’s also a role as a statewide elected official to identify issues of statewide import and to bring a solution,'' said Putnam.

4. Putnam also keeps making sure he says the right things (most of the time) to the conservatives in the GOP.

When Scott surprisingly switched his stance on Medicaid expansion it was Putnam who was one of the first to sharply criticize the governor. He hasn't been as vocal on immigration issues _ which isn't viewed in the same light by those in the agricultural industry as it is among some of the Republican faithful _ but he's spent time criticizing President Barack Obama and the federal government.

This past weekend in a speech Putnam gave to the Federalist Society he complained about problems in D.C. according to Sunshine State News (a Internet site that has shown a propensity to write about issues important to Florida's sugar companies - a key part of the state's agribusiness community.)

Putnam last week was also quick to criticize Obama's Keystone XL pipeline veto and said that the president "failed to meet the needs of the American people."

As a fifth generation Floridian Putnam has shown a deep knowledge of the state, its politics and its history. He is keenly aware of the fault lines. When asked about the Rodman Dam, for example, when discussing his water policy, he sidestepped the question.

February 25, 2015

One of the many things that Republicans, including those in Florida, have complained about President Barack Obama is his use of executive power, most recently of course seen in his executive order dealing with immigration.

At the time Attorney General Pam Bondi contended that her decision to join the other states was not about immigration but to undo what she termed "unwarranted presidential overreach."

"This lawsuit is about President Obama-yet again-overstepping the power granted to him by our United States Constitution," Bondi said.

She then added: "The powers granted to the President are expressly laid out in the United States Constitution, yet President Obama has decided to ignore those parameters."

In Tallahassee this week, Florida Gov. Rick Scott exerted his own kind of executive authority, and one that could theoretically also be challenged as "overreach."

Scott issued an executive order on Tuesday that authorized Education Commissioner Pam Stewart to suspend an 11th grade standardized test that was about to be given to high school juniors this spring.

Scott took the action in response to a testing investigation undertaken by Stewart at his urging last year while he was on the campaign trail. Stewart in her summary of that investigation suggested getting rid of the test even though it was just approved last year and was included in a bill (HB 7031) that repealed mention of Common Core in state law.

The wording of Scott's order was interesting.

First off, Scott asserts that his authority to give Stewart the power to suspend the test is vested in the state constitution. The language he cites is from the first part of Article IV, which states that the governor "has supreme executive power."

Nowhere does Scott contend that there is an emergency that requires him to act now regarding the test.

But the governor kind of acknowledges that he is telling Stewart not to follow the law, saying he is taking action now because the "Legislature will have opportunity to consider repeal of the statutory requirement" that now mandates the test. (It's not clear whether or not lawmakers will in fact do that.)

Florida's governor does not enjoy the same scope of executive power as the president although the governor is arguably more powerful now than two decades ago. Changes in the constitution and state law - especially during the Jeb Bush years - has strengthened the governor's hand.

But usually the only time the governor can suspend or waive the law is when there is an emergency such as a hurricane. Most of the time the governor's executive orders deal with matters as appointing a prosecutor from another judicial circuit to handle a case because another prosecutor has a conflict.

Former Gov. Charlie Crist, however, building on Bush's use of executive orders issued executive orders that privately some Republicans grumbled were not legal, most notably his decision to extend early voting hours during the 2008 election (and which Crist said was justified by an emergency).

One top Republican at the time said it would have created a public relations disaster to sue Crist over the order, not to mention it wasn't clear if a court would act quickly enough to block the order from taking effect.

In his final months in office he issued an executive order that extended jobless benefits approved by Congress even though the Legislature had not authorized it. Crist took the action even though past extensions had been passed by state legislators and it was assumed that the benefits would lapse absent legislative action.

Just as it had happened with the voting executive order, no one challenged Crist's authority that time either.

And that's probably what will happen with Scott as well. It's hard to imagine anyone who would go to court to force 11th graders to take a test.

But this could signal a decision by Scott to be more assertive in his use of executive authority despite signs that he may have a tough time getting fellow Republicans in the Legislature to follow his lead during a second term.

And perhaps when Scott greets Obama on the tarmac in Miami today they could regale each other about the use of executive orders.